bagatelle

There was some woman blogging about relationship advice for men. Her views where, that whatever decisions the men had done, they were always the right decisions, and they should carry on from that point.

This kind of thinking might help a person deal with en ending relationship and move on. Yet I don't see how well this applies to a situation, where someone dies.

Thinking afterwards it's an obvious conclusion, that the way things happened brought us to this exact point of events, made us what we are. We can't go back to change, what has already happened, so we can only accept what has happened.

We can still judge the means afterwards, no matter what the outcome was. It's a moral question. We have set the values for wrong and right - the rules - before the actions are taken. Someone breaks these tules: the outcome has to be something that is benifit to many people, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about 'end justifying the means'.

A cop can kill an armed person, when there is an imminent threat of that person killing or damaging other people. We allow permission to killing depending on the circumstances. We have agreed on this "exception" to the rules in advance. Killing someone in selfdefence is an acceptable exception to the rules.

Zeraph - in the example, you ar describing, the actions are wrong, the outcome is wrong, it's framing. So what if a cop kills a person, who is considered a bad guy, but the evidence on him was planted, and as a result you incite a gang war, and more damage is done.

__________________